Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment & Public Scoping Meeting for 55 Laguna from CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR’S OFFICE OF HOUSING

Read full PDF here: 2011 NOI EA 55 Laguna

A public EA scoping meeting will be held on December 19, 2011 at The San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Center at 7:00PM located at 1800 Market Street, San Francisco, CA. The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the EA. The public is invited to provide scoping comments on the issues that should be addressed in the preparation of the EA. Written comments and testimony concerning the scope of the EA will be accepted at this meeting. Non-English translation services and reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities listening devices should be requested from the person named below 72 hours in advance of the hearing. To ensure the MOH will have sufficient time to fully consider public inputs on issues, written comments must be received by MOH no later than 5:00 pm on January 18, 2012.

by Karen Mauney-Brodek

Thank you to the over 200 of you that came to our first annual Ham and Eggs Fire Breakfast on May 21st, adjacent to Patricia’s Green.  It was an overwhelming success.  Not only did it bring our neighborhood together, but it helped our Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association (HVNA) to meet our fund-raising goal for this year.

By supporting HVNA, becoming a member, reading the Voice (online version right now!), or participating in our meetings – you help the organization to work hard to improve our neighborhood.

Your membership dues support the printing of our newsletters and meeting flyers, which are hand delivered by volunteers to over 3,800 homes and businesses each month.  In addition, your dues support on-going art projects in the neighborhood (for example art in Patricia’s Green), annual efforts to help those in our neighborhood who are less fortunate, and our efforts to make sure we have a voice in our neighborhood’s future.

Each month, the neighborhood association and its committees hold meetings and forums to discuss our concerns and identify ways to address important topics around safety, upcoming development, community resources, supporting local businesses, schools and the needs of our youth.  We encourage you to visit our website:  http://www.hayesvalleysf.org/  We are temporarily making the home-page of our website the blog which will allow you to see more up to date notices of upcoming events and meetings.  You can still access the newsletter, print edition version of the Voice at:   http://hayesvalleysf.org/voice/

Our latest neighborhood achievement: working with the city and the Trust for Public Land to rebuild Hayes Valley Playground. On June 11th we celebrated the opening of the new playground and park for everyone’s enjoyment.  On to the next challenge!

Please read the article by Jason Henderson here on the blog about the UC Extension Project.  It is a very important project in our neighborhood and it is going to continue to take a lot of the attention of our organization and all of you to make sure the project provides the community with community benefits we have worked for years to ensure, including affordable housing, open space and other public amenities.

Thanks again to those of you who came to the first annual Ham and Eggs Fire Breakfast fund-raiser.  It was great to see familiar faces and hear old memories.  It was also fun to see new faces and hear new perspectives.  The neighborhood association hopes to see you at our next meeting.  Thanks to those of you who are members and/or contribute in other ways: Your support of HVNA ensures that our community has a voice!

By Jason Henderson

If after years of community involvement and compromise, you thought the future development of the former UC Berkeley site would move forward as approved, you may be wrong!  The new developer is proposing that instead of building the 49 affordable housing units required under the approved plan, they will pay a fee to the City, which would then use that money to underwrite the affordability of the Openhouse (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender-friendly senior housing) portion of the development.  The development would look the same, but would contain 49 more market rate units, generating more income for the developer, and reducing the diversity that makes this neighborhood so great.

Hayes Valley is the neighborhood of “yes” when it comes to accepting all kinds of diverse housing needs (affordable, special needs, formerly homeless).  We are as enthusiastic about accepting dense urban infill as we are a temporary farm or ice cream shop operating out of containers along Octavia Blvd. We are a rare breed. But now we have a development that is having difficulty getting us to accept them because it is shirking the affordable component. How strange. How can a developer have a problem with us?

In 2003 the nearly 6-acre UC Extension campus (aka 55 Laguna) was shuttered by the University of California.  Since the land was zoned public, the University could only use the site for educational purposes and thus the land was not that valuable. UC teamed with a developer, AF Evans Company, and in 2008 got the city to rezone most of the 6-acres to allow mixed use housing. The value of the land skyrocketed.  Because the community at-large made the land valuable and facilitated profit-making for the developers and UC, the city and surrounding neighborhoods expected substantial community benefits out of the redevelopment.

HVNA urged the developer to include affordable mixed-income housing, adaptive re-use of the site, and more emphasis on walking, bicycling, and public transit.  It took years, and not everybody got what they wanted, but the development that was entitled included 49 affordable housing units out of a total of 330. This is the basic inclusionary housing requirement that is used by the city in all new housing developments, and was minimal given that the site belongs to the public.

In the meantime, a separate piece of this project, 110 units of senior LGBT housing developed by Openhouse, was added onto the project as part of a political deal between the Board of Supervisors, our State legislative delegation, the developers, and Openhouse.  The LGBT housing, composed of very small one-room apartments with services like kitchens and elderly care on-site, was at first market rate, but then switched to being underwritten by grants from the Mayor’s Office of Housing through conventional affordable housing funding sources.

When 55 Laguna was entitled in 2008, and value accrued to the UC and the developer, there were to be 110 LGBT senior housing units AND 49 affordable units available to anyone that needed them.  That was the negotiated settlement between the city, the community, the University, and the developer. However, the project was delayed due to the global real estate bubble, and AF Evans went bankrupt. The project was in limbo.

Over the last few months a new developer, Atlanta-based Wood Partners LLC, has entered the picture and is negotiating to take over the project.  They have stated that they will not deviate from what was originally entitled and are eager to build in San Francisco.  Their entry reflects the broader real estate trend of larger-scale developers interested in urban infill, and particularly in rental housing.  With our work on the Market and Octavia Plan, we’ve made the neighborhood a very attractive place to live, and to invest, and so once financing is in place, we’ll see a lot of development like this.

But there is a BIG change in the Wood LLC proposal for 55 Laguna. The 49 units of affordable housing are in jeopardy. In December 2010, without community knowledge or input, the developer and the Mayor’s Office of Housing (MOH) came to an agreement that the developer could pay an in-lieu fee instead of building the affordable housing on site. The in-lieu fee would then be used to underwrite most of the Openhouse component of the project because the Mayor’s Office of Housing had no money to fulfill its part of the 2008 deal.

If this looks like a classic “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” that’s because it is.  And it is very unfortunate for our community.

HVNA is urging the developer and the city to rethink the loss of 49 units of affordable rental housing open to all who need it. It would be a major loss because the Hayes Valley and Upper Market Street corridor are ripe for development, but rents are sky-high. If this deal goes through, it further solidifies the alarming-trend of making this area exclusive.  So we’ve asked the city to consider finding the money it originally promised, and we’ve asked the developer to consider reducing parking, which is very expensive to construct, as a way of building in more affordable housing. We believe that the Mayor’s Office of Housing, mapping future development in the city, can identify forthcoming development fees or other sources that can be used to help with Openhouse.  The developer, standing to make huge profits, should be expected to also give a little to Openhouse without robbing from our community desperately needed affordable housing. We believe something can be worked-out to keep the project on track and to ensure affordability for ALL of those in need. But this will only happen if the community demands it.

The plan by the MOH and developer would set a terrible precedent where monied developers could petition the City to make changes against the social interest, claiming that they will leave properties derelict unless they receive concessions.

Please contact your supervisor and planning commission members to tell them you are in favor of keeping the development structured as is, and NOT making a change that benefits only the developer. You can get a sample letter and addresses on the HVNA website. Web address: 55 Laguna Letter draft

A hearing on the affordable housing at 55 Laguna is scheduled for August 4th at the San Francisco Planning Commission (City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 400).

by Murrey Nelson

I had the opportunity to sit down individually with each of the three supervisors whose districts include parts of Hayes Valley: Jane Kim of District Six, Scott Wiener of District Eight, and Ross Mirkarimi of District Five. Our discussions covered many topics that are of high importance to Hayes Valley residents and business owners, as well as to these elected officials: crime in the neighborhood, building and re-development, public education, public transportation – specifically Muni, and the Market/Octavia Plan.

Photograph of Supervisor Scott Wiener

Photograph of Supervisor Jane Kim

Photograph of Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi

While all three supervisors agree that public safety is a major issue, they each have their own take on how to eliminate crime in Hayes Valley. Supervisor Mirkarimi is a strong advocate for more cops on the street. Himself a graduate of the San Francisco Police Academy, he has high expectations of the police department and feels they need to be committed to the community and vice versa. Supervisor Wiener, a former Deputy City Attorney, feels that the problems are largely internal, and that without vigilance on the part of the community to ensure that we recommence graduating classes from the Academy and return to the number of sworn officers we had in the past, the situation on the streets cannot improve. He also calls for “smart civilianizing” of certain administrative positions, to ensure that we can put more cops on the street. Supervisor Kim sees a definite connection between economic development and job creation and the reduction of crime. She plans to schedule regular meetings with the police captains in her district, in an effort to empower neighborhood watch groups to support residents. She pointed to the creation of “safe passages” in the Tenderloin, and noted that crime goes down when the residents really care about their neighborhoods.

The subject of the development of 55 Laguna and the parcels lining Octavia Boulevard is of particular interest to the three, as an opportu- nity to set examples for other neighborhoods. All three are pro temporary use, and cited Hayes Valley Farm as an example of a creative idea that has made great contributions to the community. Wiener was planning a meeting with the project sponsors of 55 Laguna to get an update, when we met. Kim strongly supports community-grown ideas and envisions her office helping with permitting for innovative projects. Mirkarimi noted that we need to be creative in our use of vacant parcels and in our efforts to ensure that vacant buildings not become graffiti magnets. He feels that Hayes Valley Farm is the poster child for success because it has empowered a number of different constituencies.

Jane Kim is passionate about public education, as evidenced by her track record as past President of the San Francisco Board of Education. She had the opportunity to hire the current Superintendent and she is committed to closing the achievement gap. She feels strongly that the city needs to help schools improve, not just tell them what to do. She envisions a future when the city can pay for summer school, when the school year and school days are longer, and there is more learning time in general. Mirkarimi feels we need to attack the problem on two fronts: continue to fa- cilitate the connection of activities with John Muir and other organizations, while also making sure we are acting as the advocacy body that monitors the school district, by making public noise when individual schools are threatened. He sees an opportunity for neighborhood associations to unite in their understanding of the holistic connection between education and a thriving community. Wiener wants to be very involved in the lives of the schools in his district, by engaging and empowering parents, students and the community at large. He mentioned a new organization, edMatch, that is just starting up, whose vision is to raise money that would be distributed to schools on a per capita basis, reducing the pressure on the poorest PTA’s to compete with their wealthier neighbors.

All three Supervisors were united in their observation that money is only part of the problem with Muni. Reform on the MTA board, a general agency overhaul, and individual performance improvement all need to happen. Mirkarimi feels that the absence of good leadership usurps the confidence of the system; Wiener noted that the mayor’s office needs to get leaner and meaner on transportation and enforce laws and fines; and Kim pointed out that Muni’s procurement costs are increasing faster than the city’s.

Our final topic was the Market/Octavia Plan, and the key message from the Supervisors was about keeping developers accountable. They all support the plan and want to empower their constituents to help guide the Planning Commission, and work together on land use and the use of community benefit dollars.

Many of you have met Ross Mirkarimi, who was elected in 2004, and Jane Kim and Scott Wiener who attended our candidates’ forum prior to the 2010 election. We invite you to continue the conversation at our March 24th meeting, which the Supervisors will attend.

By Bill Bulkley

55 Laguna, the former UC Berkeley Extension site, has been vacant for over six years while development plans have been drawn, approved, and now flounder in economic limbo. Meanwhile, the five WPA era buildings, all listed on the National Register of Historic Places, languish in a state of disrepair. Recently, HVNA Board members, Art, Culture and Environment (ACE) Committee members, and concerned neighbors, conducted a walk around the campus to survey the state of the property.

Our group is primarily concerned with buildings falling into disrepair and site neglect. We observed specific types of building maintenance issues including moisture damage, ivy penetration and overgrowth, and graffiti. We also observed a variety of site maintenance issues including weed and ivy overgrowth, significant tree abandonment, broken sidewalks, and the presence of human trash and waste on site. The complete findings from this site survey will be presented to the HVNA Board and forwarded to UC Berkeley for action.

This property and others like it deserve better care. We would like to see regular painting over the graffiti to match the existing building colors, regular clean-up and waste removal from the site, general repair and waterproofing happen on the structures.

We continue to ask, “What is the potential for this property both in the interim and the long term? What is the state of the WPA art works on the interior?” Recently, the Lower Haight Neighborhood and Merchants Association organized a tri-neighborhood letter to UC on a proposed temporary mural at Laguna and Haight to combat blight on that corner and create a gateway to the neighborhoods. The HVNA Board strongly supports this idea.

Participants in the walk included ACE committee members David Winslow, Ed Bedard, and Rafael Ochoa, District 6 supervisor candidate James Keys, Save Laguna Street Campus members Cynthia Servetnick and Lavon Taback, concerned neighbor Adrianne Steichen, and HVNA Board members, Nathan Lozier and Bill Bulkley.

If you would like to know more about this effort or be more involved in the ACE Committee, please email Bill Bulkley at art@hayesvalleysf.org.

By Jason Henderson

There continues to be a lot of uncertainty swirling around 55 Laguna (the former UC Extension campus bounded by Laguna, Hermann, Haight, and Buchanan Streets.) Many new people to the neighborhood may not be aware of the planning history of the site. Longtime residents might not remember how much went into neighborhood discussion of the site.

A brief recap can be helpful. In 2003 the UC Extension (aka 55 Laguna) was shuttered. A year later the AF Evans Company proposed to redevelop the six-acre site with an emphasis on housing but presented a plan that involved very little community input. HVNA passed a resolution protesting the urban design plan for the campus and requested that the UC and AF Evans work with the neighborhood. HVNA did not object to the reuse of the site, but there were many concerns with the bland design, the car-oriented nature of the proposal, and with the proposal’s razing of valuable historic buildings. So in spring 2005 HVNA’s Transportation and Planning Committee hosted six community meetings to fully discuss all available options for the use of the site. Around the same time HVNA also provided extensive comments to the environmental review for the proposal, specifically outlining concerns about automobile traffic and how it would undermine the goals of the Market and Octavia Plan. We urged the developer to allow good, mixed income housing, adaptive re-use of the site, but with more emphasis on walking, bicycling, and public transit.

In July 2006 HVNA passed two resolutions on the UC Extension site and asked the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to intervene on behalf of the neighborhood. The first resolution outlined that we supported redevelopment of the site but only if it preserved public uses, reused existing buildings to the greatest extent possible (with the exception of the dental school), included more affordable housing, and aligned with the parking and zoning standards in the Market and Octavia Plan. Our rationale was that this is a publicly owned site and so should continue to serve the public good through sustainable urbanism and affordability, and not simply be redeveloped to make profit for a real estate developer using public land. The second resolution asked that the site be nominated to the National Historic Register. HVNA continued to work with AF Evans on the community benefits component of the project as well.

The project remained controversial but was approved at the planning commission in April 2008. The EIR was certified and the planning code amended to allow a special use district (SUD). However, no development occurred as AF Evans was hit by the national real estate lending downturn. No building permit was ever granted and by March 2009 AF Evans filed for bankruptcy.

According to the planning department, the special use district zoning has a five-year lifespan, although it can be extended by the planning commission. Technically the SUD will expire in April 2013. Additionally, if the development does proceed with little modification from the original proposal, the EIR is still valid. However if the development proposal was changed dramatically, a new EIR would be needed. If a new developer took over the site, all they would have to do is follow the original AF Evans proposal to get the project built. They would still need to get building permits. These have not been granted by the city yet. Inquiries to the planning department in late September suggest that the project proposal remains dormant at this time.